The EU's biggest contribution to the internet in the last 10 years was forcing every site to add a popup, ruining UX while desensitizing the world, where it was transparent to everyone in the industry that if they wanted to do something they should have targeted browser vendors and not websites.
The EU's biggest contribution is the power it gave me, a simple citizen, to force* billion-dollar companies to not share and even delete my personal data if I want to, without a complicated procedure.
First off, thats not really in the spirit of account deletion in my opinion. Because you're making me pinpoint myself to another person that I want it deleted. Maybe I don't want a human browsing my stuff reading it wondering why I'm asking for it to be deleted. Even less privacy in my opinion.
But beyond that, it won't delete your messages. I guess they just own my words forever now.
> Because you're making me pinpoint myself to another person that I want it deleted. Maybe I don't want a human browsing my stuff reading it wondering why I'm asking for it to be deleted.
That's a pretty weird objection. Even if there was a button at the bottom of your profile page that you could push to delete your account, there's nothing stopping that button from notifying some real person behind HN who could peruse your posting history before deletion.
> Even less privacy in my opinion.
What "privacy" are you talking about? You've posted these comments to a public website, where any user can view your entire comment history.
> But beyond that, it won't delete your messages. I guess they just own my words forever now.
I haven't read HN's terms of use or privacy policy (I suspect you haven't either? Ironic, considering the tone of your post), but presumably, as a condition of signing up in the first place, you've elected to allow that practice.
As a fellow HN user, I think it would be really bad for the community if random bits of old discussions just disappeared, making it difficult or impossible to understand the conversation that was going on at the time. I certainly think there should be exceptions; say you accidentally (or regretfully) posted some personal information that should be deleted... I believe in that case the HN mods would do you a solid and delete it. And I know that in some (all?) cases of account deletion, they'll make up a new username to attribute your posts to, which would dilute any association the posts have with you (assuming you used a name that you've used in other places).
Regardless, there's nothing stopping someone from scraping HN (or using the HN API) to mirror the content of discussions elsewhere. And they might not be in a jurisdiction where you can expect to get your data deleted if you really want to.
To me, these privacy/deletion laws are most useful to force a corporation to delete any data it has on you that it holds privately, and could use to identify you or monetize you or whatever. Once user-generated content comes into play, it feels like a different beast to me.
Oh you got me, I didn't read the policy when signing up. Like 98% of people.
Yet from a site dedicated to creating the modern web, I assume modern web practices are followed.
Even 20 years ago in forums you could go through and delete your posts and edit your comments to blank. Add in 20 years of "we should be able to delete our accounts!", I had figured HN follows this practice.
Whatever, I don't care, I just make a new username once every few months.
dang can and will delete any post or comment you've made if you ask him to, and the FAQ literally says while they prefer not to delete your entire comment history they will if that's what you want.
Yes, although HN has a (transparently spurious) legal argument for why what they do is OK, so you may have to actually take them to court to make it happen.
The outcome is really the only thing that matters in a practical sense. The EU might have good intentions but they've likely been a net negative to the web as a whole.
You're proving GP's point. The EU's legislation left a doorway open so websites could bully users in to continuing letting them harvest their data. If the EU had gone after browsers instead of individual websites, this wouldn't still be an issue.
This is misleading. If only technically necessary cookies are used, no consent pop-up needs to be shown.
I can't follow your point regarding targeting browser vendors. The websites are tracking their users so websites are the right target.
They are not forced to make those popups because they are not forced to collect that data in the first place.
I will take those annoying popups all day every day and happily in return for everything else that's getting better only because of them and the rest of the effects of gdpr.
And it's still weaksauce. It's merely a solid start. They should keep going and do even more.
MORE GDPR PLEASE.
I cheer them on. It's a shame I have to rely on some other countries governments to do their damned jobs that my own isn't.
It's also a shame some of those same governments are also trying to censor porn. But this comment is about the cookie consent popups.
The pop-up is only necessary if you engage in shady tracking nonsense. GDPR does not mandate a pop-up for cookies that simply allow the site to function. Essentially, it's like blaming the flashlight for having made the rats scurry across the kitchen floor.
I read gp’s as: some people expected the rat problem to be solved, but found out that rats now suggest you to opt out of them by filling out a complex form every time you visit a kitchen. Idk, this frustration is understandable.
Every site chooses to uses a popup as a fig leaf to justify their unnecessarily intrusive data collection. Comply with GDPR rules by default and you don't need a popup or can defer it until necessary.
> To comply with the regulations governing cookies under the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive you must:
> ...
> Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies.
Defined as:
> Strictly necessary cookies — These cookies are essential for you to browse the website and use its features, such as accessing secure areas of the site. Cookies that allow web shops to hold your items in your cart while you are shopping online are an example of strictly necessary cookies. These cookies will generally be first-party session cookies. While it is not required to obtain consent for these cookies, what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user.
It's entirely possible to have a useful website without requiring a popup. It's just not how most companies prefer to have the web work.
No, a popup or banner would be for requiring consent. A non-consent explanation can be in the privacy policy, or on a dedicated page that is linked in the page's footer or something.
Also, "should" be explained; I don't believe it's a violation of the law to not do so.
